Bin Wang1, Chao Shen2, Lei Zhang1, Linsong Qi1, Lu Yao1, Jianzhang Chen1, Guoqing Yang1, Tao Chen1, Zuoming Zhang3. 1. Department of Aerospace Medicine, the Forth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China, 710032. 2. College of Electronics and Control Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. 3. Department of Aerospace Medicine, the Forth Military Medical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China, 710032. zhangzm@fmmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to explore pupil light response (PLR) with respect to the change in sensitivity of photoreceptors during various dark adaptation phases and to determine the optimal duration of dark adaptation time before the PLR. METHODS: The PLR was recorded in 15 healthy subjects and three patients with neural or retinal vision loss after 1-sec blue and red light stimuli of 1, 10, and 100 cd/m(2). The PLR was repeated nine times at different checkpoints during the 40-minute dark adaptation. The transient contraction amplitude, sustained contraction amplitude, and relative sustained contraction ratio of the PLR were analyzed. RESULTS: The increase in the transient contraction amplitude during the entire dark adaptation process was significant (changing up to 45.1 %) in the initial phase of dark adaptation under different stimulus conditions. The changes in the sustained contraction amplitude and the relative sustained contraction ratio were substantial (changing up to 71.0 % and 37.2 % from 1 to 20 minutes of dark adaptation, respectively) under high-intensity blue illumination. The inflection point of the contraction curves in the dark adaptation was 15 or 20 minutes. The patients' PLR results changed in a similar manner. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in the sensitivity of different photoreceptors occurred at different rates, and the contraction amplitude of the PLR was significantly affected by the dark adaptation duration. So 20 minutes of dark adaptation before PLR testing was suggested to achieve a consistent and stable pupil response. The dark adaptation effect should be put into consideration when comparing the results from different phases of the PLR test.
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to explore pupil light response (PLR) with respect to the change in sensitivity of photoreceptors during various dark adaptation phases and to determine the optimal duration of dark adaptation time before the PLR. METHODS: The PLR was recorded in 15 healthy subjects and three patients with neural or retinal vision loss after 1-sec blue and red light stimuli of 1, 10, and 100 cd/m(2). The PLR was repeated nine times at different checkpoints during the 40-minute dark adaptation. The transient contraction amplitude, sustained contraction amplitude, and relative sustained contraction ratio of the PLR were analyzed. RESULTS: The increase in the transient contraction amplitude during the entire dark adaptation process was significant (changing up to 45.1 %) in the initial phase of dark adaptation under different stimulus conditions. The changes in the sustained contraction amplitude and the relative sustained contraction ratio were substantial (changing up to 71.0 % and 37.2 % from 1 to 20 minutes of dark adaptation, respectively) under high-intensity blue illumination. The inflection point of the contraction curves in the dark adaptation was 15 or 20 minutes. The patients' PLR results changed in a similar manner. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in the sensitivity of different photoreceptors occurred at different rates, and the contraction amplitude of the PLR was significantly affected by the dark adaptation duration. So 20 minutes of dark adaptation before PLR testing was suggested to achieve a consistent and stable pupil response. The dark adaptation effect should be put into consideration when comparing the results from different phases of the PLR test.
Authors: Jay C Bradley; Karl C Bentley; Aleem I Mughal; Hari Bodhireddy; Rockefeller S L Young; Sandra M Brown Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.671
Authors: Dennis M Dacey; Hsi-Wen Liao; Beth B Peterson; Farrel R Robinson; Vivianne C Smith; Joel Pokorny; King-Wai Yau; Paul D Gamlin Journal: Nature Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Randy Kardon; Susan C Anderson; Tina G Damarjian; Elizabeth M Grace; Edwin Stone; Aki Kawasaki Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Carina Kelbsch; Torsten Strasser; Yanjun Chen; Beatrix Feigl; Paul D Gamlin; Randy Kardon; Tobias Peters; Kathryn A Roecklein; Stuart R Steinhauer; Elemer Szabadi; Andrew J Zele; Helmut Wilhelm; Barbara J Wilhelm Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Mirjam Münch; Anna Wirz-Justice; Steven A Brown; Thomas Kantermann; Klaus Martiny; Oliver Stefani; Céline Vetter; Kenneth P Wright; Katharina Wulff; Debra J Skene Journal: Clocks Sleep Date: 2020-02-28